Friday, November 16, 2012

Rudies. A message to you from Morosi. (Stop your messing around. Time you straightened right out. Creating problems in MLB towns. etc)

Here is what we learned from the 2012 award season, writ large:

• Sabermetricians are not yet kingmakers in the Baseball Writers’ Association of America award balloting. Trout (MVP) and Justin Verlander (Cy Young) were the clear favorites of the statistical community in contentious AL votes. Neither won.

...Fortunately, the BBWAA does not engage in groupthink. If we did, we would write identical stories and fill out matching ballots. The reporters who make up the electorate should talk with managers, coaches and players about the award candidates, and they should consult statistics new and old. The process is familiar to us: gather all of the available information, analyze it, and reach a conclusion. That is how we work every day. And that is how we approach these awards.

We are, at our best, the ultimate swing voters. On the question of whether my future selections will be swayed by numbers or narratives, my riposte is a bald-faced equivocation: It depends. In some years, I will probably agree with the sabermetric orthodoxy. In other cases, I won’t.

My best hope is that I will have the chance to cast a ballot like the AL MVP voters did this year, with two deserving candidates and no wrong answers.

... But I’ll admit to a little fatigue, too. It’s time for a social media ceasefire, so we can better direct our efforts to divining where Josh Hamilton will play in 2013 (not to mention our reporting on Loria’s efforts to secure public funding for that Quidditch stadium).

Au revoir, Old School stalwarts. So long, New School provocateurs. Until we meet again — next year.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

There is an optimist... the stats vs old school could go nuclear with the HOF vote if old schoolers vote in Morris while steroid era poster boys Clemens, Bonds, etc. are left at the alter with a stat favorite Tim Raines.

I suspect the MVP/Cy Young battles will calm down the next few years (triple crown vs super-rookie is unlikely to repeat) while the HOF vote battles go sky high.

I would have voted for Trout. That said, I do think there are other factors than can and should be considered other than data. Clubhouse presence, clutch performance (whether or not its repeatable the next season is irelevant), leadership, and other attributes that will never be quantified all contribute to a team's performance. I don't think those kinds of intangibles can make up a gap as large as the one between Trout and Cabrera, but they certainly can tip the scales in a closer "statistical" race, and should never be discounted just because we're not smart enough to assign a number to their value.

On the question of whether my future selections will be swayed by numbers or narratives, my riposte is a bald-faced equivocation: It depends. In some years, I will probably agree with the sabermetric orthodoxy. In other cases, I won’t.

This line reads like an obnoxious way of saying: I pledge to vote for the deserving winner, unless he plays for the team I used to cover.

That said, I do think there are other factors than can and should be considered other than data.

I totally agree. In this case, I think it matters that Cabrera played somewhat out of position. The data doesn't care about that because it simply measures what happened, but it is part of his value (by my definition of value - that's a whole other story). Most teams with a star first baseman wouldn't have the option of picking up another one without relegating one to DH-hood - Cabrera's versatility gave the Tigers better options (not his fault that they pissed that advantage away by pretending Delmon Young is a real major league player).

The data says Mike Trout played baseball better than Miguel Cabrera this year. After that, reasonable people can make any kind of adjustment they want. I'm surprised nobody made the argument that Trout produced all that goodness while consuming less than one half percent of the team's payroll.

I don't want to go MGL here; I do think civility is important. Still, if all you've got to defend yourself in a logical argument is that your opponent is being rude, you've really got nothing. (Especially if, as is always the case, there are other people making the same argument who aren't being rude.)

it matters that Cabrera played somewhat out of position... Most teams with a star first baseman wouldn't have the option of picking up another one without relegating one to DH-hood

Who is not giving Cabrera credit for being a 3B? If anything, many of the pro-Cabrera people seem to want to give him credit not only for the actual value of playing 3B, but for the intangible of being a "team player" and agreeing to do it.

If anything, many of the pro-Cabrera people seem to want to give him credit not only for the actual value of playing 3B, but for the intangible of being a "team player" and agreeing to do it.

And there is nothing wrong with doing that - it does add value to the team. How much weight you give it is another matter; as Rants suggests in #4 it probably doesn't outweigh the on-field difference in this case.

That said, if the Angels had made the postseason or the White Sox had held on I think Trout would have won the award. Postseason narratives matter a lot more than they should (IMO) in the award voting, and the narrative story of the last month-plus of the season was that the Tigers rode Cabrera to the postseason while the Angels folded down the stretch, with Trout not doing as well as he did earlier. (Note that neither story, especially the Angels' piece of it, is exactly true.)

People in this country (and maybe around the world) have this notion that if there are two sides to an issue and that if each side has enough proponents, that both positions then have the same objective validity. So basically you get things like "I'm a Cabrera person, you're a Trout person" as though that's all that needs to be said. It seems not to be understood that one position (Trout) can be inherently correct.

the narrative story of the last month-plus of the season was that the Tigers rode Cabrera to the postseason while the Angels folded down the stretch, with Trout not doing as well as he did earlier. (Note that neither story, especially the Angels' piece of it, is exactly true.)

That's an understatement. It's actually the opposite of truth. The Tigers surged to an 18-13 record in September/October, while the Angels stumbled to a 19-11 finish. Angels not only finished with a better record than the Tigers, they did so in a much tougher division. Had the two teams switched places (Tigers playing 20 more games vs the Rangers/A's while Angels gain 20 games vs the Twins/Indians) their records would not have been remotely close.

Cabrera receives credit in WAR for playing 3B and not costing the team any more runs than he typically did at first base. That's worth about 1.2 WAR right there. Above and beyond that, he deserves credit for cheerfully accepting the position switch, and not making a Soriano of it.

But if you're going to intangibles, Trout gets extra points for his hustle, and the infectious pure joy with which he played. It turned the season around for a team that played like a corpse before his arrival, and took some of the pressure off of Pujols as he made his uncomfortable transition to his new home.

There is an opportunity for someone to create an MVP stat. WAR is being used that way by some, but it really is not the right tool for that.

Say Roy Hobbs is a leading candidate for the NY Knights, fighting a close division race with Clu Haywood of the Yankees.

Hobbs goes 3-4 with 2 homers in a win over the Yankees. Haywood goes 0-4. The next day Hayood is 3-4 with 2 homers against the last place Florida Mud Hens, while Hobbs takes the collar against the the also-ran Oakland B's. For those two games, they have the same total batting line and equal WAR. But it should be clear that Hobbs has been more valuable to his team's chances of winning the division.

So we need some kind of point system, with an adjustment for opponent faced, with games against division rivals being worth more points.

Don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but there's certainly an element of saberhood that is very rude.

It's not just the Triple Crown; Cabrera led the league in SLG and OPS. No one's buying the ca. 12% park adjustment between Anaheim and bigger, colder CoPa and they shouldn't -- particularly when Trout hit far better at home. So Trout and Cabrera aren't as close offensively as WAR would have you believe.

It then comes down to whether defense and baserunning overcome this difference. WAR says "yes, clearly." "No" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

This is the centrist, reasonable way to evaluate this thing, and it bends over backward for Trout because it says nothing about the fact that Cabrera moved positions and his team won the AL pennant. There's simply nothing wrong -- much less the kind of surpassing "wrong" being blared about -- for the MVP to be the league leader in SLG and OPS whose team won the pennant. Nothing.

Still, if all you've got to defend yourself in a logical argument is that your opponent is being rude, you've really got nothing. (Especially if, as is always the case, there are other people making the same argument who aren't being rude.)

And if, as is always the case, there are people supporting your argument who are being rude.

It then comes down to whether defense and baserunning overcome this difference. WAR says "yes, clearly." "No" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Take away park adjustment and Cabrera is what, 5-10 runs better than Trout on offense?

"No" is not a perfectly acceptable answer. It is not plausible to anyone who has watched these players run the bases or play the field. To start with, Trout should be treated as worth 34 homers, not 30, because of the homeruns he took away from opponents.

The reporters who make up the electorate should talk with managers, coaches and players about the award candidates,

This is the line that gets me. I don't see what this has to do with anything. Are you going to hear anything other than cliches?

Olney was saying that all the players, coaches, and managers were telling writers that they were out of their minds if they didn't vote for Cabrera, while all the GMs and other FO types were telling writers that they were out of there minds if they didn't vote for Trout. Maybe that would be a more interesting topic for an article or two than continued beating of the "old school vs mom's basement" horse.

It doesn't make sense that the difference in offensive output between Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout was explained by differences in their home parks, given the dimensions of those parks and the climate of those parks and the characteristics of the two hitters. For those who want to spend a bunch of time browbeating (and, frankly, boring) people into believing that Cabrera had a huge advantage in wind currents, molecule shapes, and the like, it's a free country -- have at it.

Above and beyond that, he deserves credit for cheerfully accepting the position switch, and not making a Soriano of it.

No he doesn't. Moving from 1B to 3B is a promotion. Does Trout get credit for cheerfully accepting his promotion?

Cabrera getting credit for moving to a position that showed greater respect for his skills is a completely Cabrera-centric argument. It's like he'd been batting 7th, and they moved him up to 3rd. Should he complain about that? More to the point, should we be impressed when he doesn't? No.

Hobbs goes 3-4 with 2 homers in a win over the Yankees. Haywood goes 0-4. The next day Hayood is 3-4 with 2 homers against the last place Florida Mud Hens, while Hobbs takes the collar against the the also-ran Oakland B's. For those two games, they have the same total batting line and equal WAR. But it should be clear that Hobbs has been more valuable to his team's chances of winning the division.

So we need some kind of point system, with an adjustment for opponent faced, with games against division rivals being worth more points.

The net works out to +12 runs for Cabrera. Trout makes up half of that with his homer-saving catches alone.

Then there's the rest of their defense in preventing hits. Trout's basestealing. Going 1st-3rd, 2nd-home. These baserunning events are just as quantifiable as the triples and homers they hit, to anyone who want to bother looking them up on BB-ref. Or if you don't want to calculate it yourself you can take the BB-ref calculation that says +10 Trout.

Hate to imagine what BBTF would've done in 1996 for Gonzalez over A-Rod - one of the worst possible MVP votes I'd think. A DH/OF over a SS when the SS outhit the DH/OF. Or 1987 when two horrid votes happened.

gather all of the available information, analyze it, and reach a conclusion. That is how we work every day. And that is how we approach these awards.

This is the opposite of how most sports writers work (intentionally or not). First they decide the answer, then they find evidence to justify it. Which is why in 2010 Morosi was arguing Cabrera over Hamilton for MVP because of the Rangers record without him, park effects, and lineup protection.

It doesn't make sense that the difference in offensive output between Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout was explained by differences in their home parks, given the dimensions of those parks and the climate of those parks

dimensions and temperature are only a small part of what makes a park a good hitter's park or a good pitcher's park.

Hate to imagine what BBTF would've done in 1996 for Gonzalez over A-Rod - one of the worst possible MVP votes I'd think.

A-Rod himself gave the writers all the cover they needed for not voting for him, repeatedly answering MVP questions with "How can I be the MVP of the league when I'm not even the MVP of my own team." And you know what? By Bref-WAR, he was right (if barely).

Hate to imagine what BBTF would've done in 1996 for Gonzalez over A-Rod - one of the worst possible MVP votes I'd think.

Even more fun (and not just because following the Royals would have relevance in an awards discussion) would be votes like 1985 AL MVP or 1982 AL Cy Young when there were at least two better runners-up than the winner.

I totally agree. In this case, I think it matters that Cabrera played somewhat out of position. The data doesn't care about that because it simply measures what happened, but it is part of his value (by my definition of value - that's a whole other story). Most teams with a star first baseman wouldn't have the option of picking up another one without relegating one to DH-hood - Cabrera's versatility gave the Tigers better options (not his fault that they pissed that advantage away by pretending Delmon Young is a real major league player).

Doesn't this logic apply to salary? Trout made like 20 million dollars less than Cabrera this year. You can buy a lot of wins with 20 million.

Hobbs goes 3-4 with 2 homers in a win over the Yankees. Haywood goes 0-4. The next day Hayood is 3-4 with 2 homers against the last place Florida Mud Hens, while Hobbs takes the collar against the the also-ran Oakland B's. For those two games, they have the same total batting line and equal WAR. But it should be clear that Hobbs has been more valuable to his team's chances of winning the division.

How? They are at the same place in the standings. Yes, on paper it helps more to win the head to head. Because you are assuming that the opponent can't make up the ground by being better against the chumps. But if they can, the question is moot. Yes, your odds were better than even when you're both playing the tailenders. But they won, you lost, and it's back to even. Unless the head to head plays a tiebreaker, it's all the same.

No this is idiotic. Trout has a 4 WAR lead per B-R. You're arguing that park factors are off by 4 wins? Or the Cabrera was actually somehow *way* better than a -4 defender at third? Trout's probably wasn't worth +21 runs, but he was worth at least 10. Doesn't come close to narrowing the gap.

Frankly, there is no statistical argument for Cabrera as the MVP. If you're voting for him it's because you think the triple crown is cool, or because you think that the MVP has to come from a playoff team.

No this is idiotic. Trout has a 4 WAR lead per B-R. You're arguing that park factors are off by 4 wins? Or the Cabrera was actually somehow *way* better than a -4 defender at third? Trout's probably wasn't worth +21 runs, but he was worth at least 10. Doesn't come close to narrowing the gap.

WAR isn't the beginning point, and you've got the "gap" wrong.

Cabrera dodsn't have to make up a WAR "gap"; Trout has to make up a gap in offense.

What the #### are you talking about? WAR is the beginning point because it takes into account all factors. There's no reason to prioritize offense over defense. WAR takes both into account (as well as other fundamental things). Also, Mike Trout WAR: 10.7. Cabrera WAR: 6.9. 10.7 - 6.9 = 3.8. Sorry my bad, jerk.

Even if Cabrera is 10-20 runs better on offense, and you give no park adjustment, Trout should easily make that up on baserunning (which is about 15 runs IIRC) and defense (which is probably 15 runs at the most conservative estimate.)

Cabrera dodsn't have to make up a WAR "gap"; Trout has to make up a gap in offense.

I think he does make up that difference even if you assume that the park effects for the two wash each other out. Trout was nearly as good offensively then better on the bases. Then add in that be was dramatically better on defense while playing about half the season at a much more important defensive position.

Somebody (on tv; I forget who) was trying to make this into a generational thing; the young hip saber types for Trout, old school grampas for Cabrera. I am an old school grampa, I guess, but I gave the nod to Trout; but it's not like it's a huge miscarriage of justice or anything. It's close, and I can see why people went to Cabrera.

If you use the park factors that BB-ref is using, then Trout is a better HITTER than Cabrera. At that point the game is over. Sorry Karl, but Cabrera's chances of making up the offensive gap with his defense/baserunning is comparable to Romney's chance of making up a slim Obama lead in Ohio with only the districts in the city of Cleveland.

If you use no park factors, then Cabrera has a +12 run lead. My math is in #29 based on these weights: BB/HBP .33, 1B .47, 2B .8, 3B 1.00, HR 1.40, Out -.25. If you disagree then show your math.

Trout makes that gap up with baserunning and avoiding GIDP (yes, adjusted for opportunities).

He pulls ahead on defense, either by a little or a lot depending on the source.

On the question of whether my future selections will be swayed by numbers or narratives, my riposte is a bald-faced equivocation: It depends. In some years, I will probably agree with the sabermetric orthodoxy. In other cases, I won’t.

I don't want to go MGL here; I do think civility is important. Still, if all you've got to defend yourself in a logical argument is that your opponent is being rude, you've really got nothing. (Especially if, as is always the case, there are other people making the same argument who aren't being rude.)

Coke to the DA here. Most all the discussion I've seen on the issue has been thoughtful, maybe at worst a little impassioned. There will always be those few who are trolling or otherwise are being clueless -- but if you pay attention to folks like this and subsequently blame everyone else who disagrees with you because of their antics, you've only got yourself to blame.

People in this country (and maybe around the world) have this notion that if there are two sides to an issue and that if each side has enough proponents, that both positions then have the same objective validity.

This, definitely, and coke to JJ1986. A more extreme version is the notion that Creationism is somehow a reasonable alternative to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Sorry, but saying it over and over, publishing several articles full of bad science, having a number of people believe in the idea, and getting a couple yahoos in high places to pass laws forcing schools to teach both concepts doesn't make Creationism valid.

How much weight you give it is another matter; as Rants suggests in #4 it probably doesn't outweigh the on-field difference in this case.

Cabrera + Fielder = 11.3 WAR
Trout = 10.7 WAR

So in terms of what weight to assign to Cabrera's move to 3B, you have to give it the entire weight of Prince ... which is rather a lot. :-)

People, plesae, don't engage SBB or if you are going to engage SBB at least call him on his utter total bullshit:

MT home: 976 OPS
MT road: 951 OPS

MC home: 1094 OPS
MC road: 913 OPS

Which of these guys "hit far better at home" than he did on the road? Which of these guys hit better on the road when compared to the other? Which of these guys benefits most if we ignore park effects?

Which of these guys "hit far better at home" than he did on the road? Which of these guys hit better on the road when compared to the other? Which of these guys benefits most if we ignore park effects?

Feel free to re-read this thread, which includes the last 3 years of home/road splits for Angel hitters and pitchers, and 2012 home/road splits for all the regular hitters on both the Angels and Tigers, among other things.

Then feel free to keep saying, "Comerica Park is bigger," and calling the rest of us the non-responsive ones.

Which of these guys "hit far better at home" than he did on the road? Which of these guys hit better on the road when compared to the other? Which of these guys benefits most if we ignore park effects?

Not responsive. Cabrera isn't the guy asking for a 12% welfare check.

Quite responsive, actually. Trout is a slightly better hitter at home (all hitters are), while Cabrera is a much better hitter at home. It seems pretty clear that Cabrera is, in fact, playing in a more friendly hitting environment.

EDIT: A simple comparison (Home OPS/Road OPS, controlled for road) shows Trout's home OPS "should" be about 1.002, while Cabrera's "should" be about .962.

Their road stats are not relevant to park factors. What park factors do is adjust the replacement level part of WAR. You'd expect a replacement level player in a hitters park to hit better than a replacement level player in a pitchers park. That's why they use the average park factor instead of adjusting it on a hitter by hitter basis.

>
The rival could just as easily lose on a day when you aren't playing them.

But they will never lose on a day you lose to them, which is the point. And they will never win on a day you beat them. You are controlling both sides of the equation on those days, so they are more important to do well in. That seems very obvious, yet apparently not.

True. I suppose there is some minuscule chance that Crom played a joke on us and planted all the fake evidence to make it look like evolution happened. Crom, he is funny like that. But there is no chance that Cabrera was better than Trout.